There's nothing useful to be accomplished by conflating untyped languages with dynamic ones. I've written a bit of assembly language and more Forth; it's not Python, it's not even relevant to Python.
Well, separating them is just as arbitrary. From the perspective of type theory, both kinds are just unityped. I was responding to claims about dynamic typing - and to that, assembler is relevant, as it uses the same typing discipline.
Moreover, as others noted, the division between static and dynamic typing fans probably started with Lisp sometime in the '50s. The arguments for and against each typing discipline are mostly the same as they were way, way before Python existed. Some technological breakthroughs did change some aspects of a discussion, but the debate is mainly philosophical and treated as a social activity more than an engineering one. That helped it remain frozen in time for so long.
In any case, Python is most assuredly not what gave dynamic typing a bad name. Instead, what gave dynamic typing a bad name were developers with a strong preference for static typing. And on the other hand, what gave static typing a bad reputation - and it also does have one like that - were developers who liked dynamic typing more.
That statement is ahistorical and is impossible to defend without intensive goalpost-moving.
Seriously? Even if my arguments are sound? Just because I didn't notice the change in the nick, because I was replying from the threads page, where the parent post of my first comment was not displayed? Well... Ok, I guess. And what yelling, could you please tell me? I read my previous post probably 20 times by now, and I honestly cannot see what did I write that deserves to be called "yelling"...
